“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”~ Ronald Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981

HB 1860 Precinct Committee Officer Election Hearing

The Story of the PCOs

Michele St. Pierre (c) 2011

Once upon a time there was a Representative Republic. Legislators were elected by the people to represent them in a Constitutionally limited government to ensure that the government never got out of control and violated the rights of the people.

Political parties immediately developed to support candidates who shared their particular viewpoints and principles to help elect them to public office.

Candidate Selection Without Representation

All the Politicos Revolve around the Party Boss Sun

This system became corrupt as top-down mafioso-style Party bosses took over the parties and began to run them for their own interests, leaving the people without representation in the parties and thus, without candidates to elect to represent them in the government.

To counter the corruption, laws were put in place that Precinct Committee Officers would be elected from each small precinct to elect the leaders in the Political Parties so that the grassroots electorate would be represented in the parties in a bottom up fashion, so that candidates would be elected that actually represented the interests of the People and not special interests.

Boss Tweed

For over 100 years that system was in place to protect the people from corrupt party leadership.

And so, everyone lived happily ever after, right?

Well, no. Then comes REALITY.

Party Bosses Decide to Sue

Due to actions of the Party Bosses in pursuing a lawsuit regarding the Top Two Primary (the Republican Party in particular practically bankrupting itself in order to finance it) a Judge threw out the whole system saying the PCO laws were Unconstitutional and violated the parties’ right of free association. Although he said the problem could be fixed by merely having a box where people could pick party affiliation before voting for their PCO, he left that to the Legislature or the Parties to work out.

And so it came about that I was at a Hearing today on HB 1860, since the Republican leadership decided to implode the whole PCO system and allow the Democratically controlled legislature to decide how the parties will now be structured.

As proposed, HB 1860 would have allowed for PCOs to be elected in Presidential Primary years because people show what party they are affiliated with. This would change PCO elections from every two years to every four years. Chairman Craig Pridemore said that in 2012 it looked like there would be no Presidential Primary, so he did not think that this bill was a good solution to the problem. (Duh!) He also said that it appeared that we won’t have a resolution on this until next year, which could mean that with no law at all, it will be up to the Parties to decide what to do, and my worry is that they will just want to appoint PCOs.

Primarily I was objecting to any system that would eliminate PCO elections and allow the Parties to appoint them and also to making PCO elections happen only once every four years rather than every two years.

SO WHERE WERE THE PCOs’ ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? WHY WAS I THE ONLY ONE TESTIFYING REGARDING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE?

It was an issue important enough that the Republican Party felt it had to pay Hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers to destroy the system already in place.

Missing in Action

So now, with the whole PCO system at stake, due to their actions, the Party sends no one to be the voice for the PCOs? Where are the State Committeemen and Women? They were elected by the PCOs to represent THEM and yet this vital, crucial issue is being completely ignored by them? What about all the Legislative District Chairs — NOT THERE. Kirby Wilbur — MISSING IN ACTION! If you are a PCO, I just wanted you to know that NOT ONE PERSON THAT YOU ELECTED WAS THERE TO REPRESENT YOU! It’s not like the leaders don’t know about this. The issue is discussed at every State Executive Board Meeting. It was THEIR lawsuit that brought this about!

Why was I the only one from the Republican Party to show up? I think that more PCOs would have shown up, if their Party had TOLD THEM ABOUT THIS. But you haven’t been told. Why is that? Why are you kept uninformed? It is time that the PCOs hold their leaders accountable. If you do not, your position will be allocated to the dustbin of history, along with the Republican form of government which you swore to uphold.

As a comical aside, I did run into Luke Esser wandering the hallways outside the Hearing Room in Olympia. The SEIU lobbyist seemed strangely drawn to the scene of the destruction and mayhem he dealt the party and the PCOs, leaving their very existence to the whims of the Democratic Legislature. For if the Republican Party turns its back on the Grassroots, it will spell the end of that Party as the grassroots will decide to green another field.

8 Responses

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. And I will be a Father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ Says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Michele, as always a great article you put together. Since you’re wondering where Kirby Wilbur was during this whole thing? I think I can answer that. The answer to that is Kirby and I have been tangled up on the State GOP’s facebook page. We have been sparring over Laura Sample and more specifically Mark Hulst and Kirby’s choice for state political director Caleb Heimlich. It’s become a pretty explosive situation between us that’s not over yet. Its much too big to detail in this comment section, but soon enough I will be writing a story about this whole ordeal for all to see.

The PCO election state program is failing. Six percent of the state’s 4300 PCO elections were contested in 2010.

Washington elections are effectively non-partisan. A candidate merely “prefers” a party on the ballot. For example, Oscar the Grouch, even though he’s never been to a party meeting, can pop out of his garbage can and prefer any party he wants – no matter how much the party doesn’t want him. Judge Coughenour mentioned the Dale / Boyscouts case regarding PCO elections and ignores it with “prefers party”. But the Top-Two case was mostly about voter confusion over “prefers party” with the disclaimer on the ballot. I might have missed it, but I didn’t see any evidence submitted of the harm to association. I do know that the GOP relied on a wonky experiment for their evidence. There are real situations where private group rights were impacted. (Look at the 34th LD in 2010 and Wahkiakum County Board of commissioners race 2008 http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/08/the_power_of_a_solitary_vote_t.php.

The designers and supporters of “prefers party” want weak parties – and they’ve got them. Major party leaders want weak association also. They are seeking a return to partisan primaries – another 100 year old reform.

The two state parties are strong soft-money conduits. As far as the grassroots side goes, they’re really weak. In light of this PCO elections really don’t matter.

Thanks for commenting at TRW, Krist, I’d like an opportunity to discuss some of these issues over coffee sometime. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of fair elections.
You’ve suggested at least 3 times, here, that the “PCO program” is “failing.” And your yardstick is the number of contested seats. With all due respect you’ve imposed your private preferences over the rights of grassroots Party members.
Allow me to do the same.
How many elections for positions were there on the band, Nirvanna? What percentage of those elections were contested?
So, I guess we could say the Nirvanna system was failing from the beginning, no? Why does the lack of controversy over who holds a position call the validity of the position into question? But that’s what you’ve done. I’m sure you must be making unstated assumptions about what should be happening. You need to submit your assumptions for analysis. We shouldn’t judge the “program” a failure if it simply doesn’t please you for some unstated reason.
But the purpose of PCO elections is to provide a means of Party members controlling their own Party. It does that. And, whether or not they choose to participate does not cast any doubt about the good of holding elections. Should we have suspended elections of Federal Office holders, Senators and Presidents and what not, when the number of people participating fell below a majority of those potentially eligible to vote? Worse yet, thereby leaving the officials then in place in permanent control?
Nope.
Washington elections are anything but non-partisan. The problem you’re pointing to on the top two is easily remedied. All it requires is for the Party concerned to hold a legitimate, independent nomination process and forbid the unauthorized use of its name, irrespective of the Primary. Try selling hamburgers as “prefers McDonalds” from a roadside stand made of orange crates. Legal action would be successful. Oscar could lose his can over it. The reason this does not happen on the Republican side, with which I am intimately familiar, has nothing to do with the “system” and everything to do with corruption within the Party. The old guard does NOT want grassroots nominations.
Your solution seems to acquiesce to the disenfranchisement of the grassroots. Sort of like saying, “Well, Nirvanna is a private group, just let the manager keep all the revenue. What’s the State got to do with it?” The State makes theft and fraud illegal. That’s what we’re talking about. The current managers take all the profit and running off with it. Coughenour ruled in favor of the management as if they were the Party. They are NOT.
Why shouldn’t there be laws regarding corporate elections to prevent the elected trustees of corporate assets from stealing those assets? That’s all we’re asking. All private organizations submit to the law. All of them. Just laws prevent theft and fraud, blackmail and extortion. We need a resurgence of such laws to the frustration of “regulation.”

Thanks for the kind words about my work with election reform. Send me a message to the e-mail I submitted in the comment and this summer let’s meet.

First off, our positions are close. We want transparent party functions and party leaders to be held accountable. And yes, grassroots participation is paramount to an open democracy.

PCO elections are indeed failing. When I was involved in local party politics, I witnessed how PCOs get on the ballot. Candidates are usually chosen by their local party leaders. I would basically lasso folks in individual precincts to get on the ballot – without exception uncontested. It’s a process completely opposite to the good faith you’re basing your position on. The current PCO “so-called” elections are meaningless. If most state and federal elections are mostly meaningless don’t cancel them – work to change the rules. This is what I, along with others are trying to do.

I think PCO’s -those people who bother to show up only to be derided as hacks – do a decent job nominating people. For example, here in the 3rd CD, PCOs from both major parties nominated Jaime Herrera Beutler and Denny Heck, respectively, to stand for their parties in the House race. You say that party “management” are not the members. Too bad there’s a disconnect in the GOP with party leadership and members. Perhaps that’s a result of broken PCO elections?

Why can’t PCO’s, or even rank-and-file members members, vote on party officers without the clumsy state apparatus? The California GOP has said phooey to the state and are going to mail ballots to their members themselves. I say good for them. They’re a group of people who want to express their values and needs -their voice- in the forum of democracy. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/03/gop-rules-committee-passes-amb.html

And Washington elections are definitely non-partisan. The August vote is a “qualifying primary” unlike a “nominating primary” with exclusive partisan ballots, along with, in some states, voter party registration.

Judge Coughenour’s ruling was partly about the disclaimer on the ballot and if it confused anybody. The Judge, along with the State and Grange, say that if a voter is confused about the disclaimer – that’s their own problem. The ballot says “party” – why, I do not know – but the space following the candidate’s name is basically a 16 character cue for voters that, as the disclaimer says, could have nothing to do with a political party. It is a non-partisan ballot that allows candidates to send a message.

You might be aware that I ran a protest candidacy with prefers GRANGE Party. I attacked my own group, folks whom I really like working with, to prove a point about association. Perhaps I should have gone after a group I have nothing to do with by stating on the ballot “PREFERS AMERICAN LEGION PARTY”? There’s a legion hall down the road and I leave those good people alone to do their thing. I believe the state should do the same.

In your comment to me, you made an analogy to Oscar The Grouch setting up a McDonalds hamburger stand. Of course he would be shut down, but under terms of commercial law. The American Legion, along with other groups, should be able to keep people who have nothing to do with them off the ballot. Washington State allowed me to change the message of the Grange – and on all places the public ballot! Real folks thought there was a Grange party, and they were actually excited about such a thing. But the Grange has ALWAYS steered clear of endorsing candidates. Again, the ballot allowed me to change the message of a group and that’s why the Dale / Boy Scouts case is important.

The state of Massachusetts told the Boys Scouts that they had to accept an openly gay scoutmaster. SCOTUS ruled very narrowly in the Dale case. It wasn’t about sexual orientation, it was about the state changing the message of a group. The Boy Scouts didn’t want their message to be about homosexuality. They’re a private ‘expressive association’ and the state can’t force them to say something. This is the way it should be. “Private” gay groups have the right to organize their Pride Parades. They control who can march in their event.

In their public statements over the Coughenhour Top-Two ruling, the defendants have washed their hands of the PCO issue. Of course the state is going to let PCO elections go – it seeks weak grassroots political association. Don’t forget that Washington voters themselves are complicit in this. Grassroots activists need to make their own way, and the good news is they can. The first step is to let the state go.

Krist, again, you claim PCO elections are “failing,” though, once again, failing, yourself, to specify your criteria. Unexamined assumptions are the bane of political thought.

You describe your personal experiences in one of Washington’s tiny counties as though it is universally indicative. You say your sample size was WHAT? That’s not a study, that’s a personal narrative. With all due respect, your same subjective and unexamined assumptions have contaminated the data. Mahatma Ghandi and Adolf Hitler both engaged in grassroots politics and I daresay their personal analyses of ANY given electoral system based on their personal experiences and interaction with their closest 2500 contacts would have more to do with them as individual activists than the system in question. Same with you.

You say, “I would basically lasso folks in individual precincts to get on the ballot – without exception uncontested. “
Why, given your only stated objective; “contested PCO elections,” did you not recruit competing candidates in each race? There must be something missing. When you recruited one candidate, you knew he or she wouldn’t be contested, didn’t you? So you knew that you were “failing,” based on the only criterion you’ve given us. That you were attempting to secure contested elections is not credible. Fess up, dude. What were you really doing? Why did it really fail?

You reference “a process completely opposite to the good faith you’re [Doug is] basing your position on.”
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. I see almost no “good faith” in the status quo and a political class that is eliminating elections in order to permanently solidify their hold on power.

You say, “The current PCO ‘so-called’ elections are meaningless.”
Only if we measure them by your subjective criterion. You should not attempt to win a debate by simply imposing your philosophy on the discussion and demanding that everyone else accept your judgment because you keep repeating yourself. Holding elections is good. Dictatorial power is bad. Apathy by the electorate does not justify dictatorship. With respect to political parties, you say “democracy is failing!” “Few vote!” “Let’s replace it by removing the right to vote!”
I respectfully disagree.

You say, “If most state and federal elections are mostly meaningless don’t cancel them – work to change the rules. This is what I, along with others are trying to do.”
You can’t say an election is “meaningless” simply because you didn’t get the result you want. Our last Presidential election resulted in the election of a disingenuous socialist autocrat who is dismantling the Republic as quickly as could be imagined, but that is not “meaningless” and I’m not trying to do away with elections or planning a military coup. “Changing rules” should only be done if the rules are unfair. The law should be impartial, not a stratagem of social engineering. If Americans are lazy, ignorant and apathetic they will get bad results. It is not a reason to eliminate suffrage.

You mention, “-those people who bother to show up only to be derided as hacks” I was unaware of any blanket ad hominem labeling PCO’s as “hacks.” Perhaps if I were a Democrat…?

“…do a decent job nominating people.”
No Republican was nominated by PCOs.

You say, “Too bad there’s a disconnect in the GOP with party leadership and members. Perhaps that’s a result of broken PCO elections?”
Gosh, Krist, I’ve been teaching and writing hundreds of articles here, on the Reagan Wing for the last seven years delineating exactly why that is true. It mirrors, in many respects, that which is also true of the nation, why our liberty and prosperity are hanging by a thread. And you suggest that, perhaps, it is because we elect our leaders? Democracy, itself, is failing? I think Islam has answers to that. The Marxists, too.

You ask, “Why can’t PCO’s, or even rank-and-file members, vote on party officers without the clumsy state apparatus?”
That would be possible. It is not being proposed. What is being proposed is the ELIMINATION of elections. And ONLY that.

You point out that the “California GOP has said phooey to the state and are going to mail ballots to their members themselves. I say good for them.”
So do I. But because they have STATE party registration in California and we DO NOT here, it is not possible in Washington. The generation of a similar system in Washington (not the only acceptable alternative) requires DISMANTLING THE EXISTING PARTIES AND CONSTRUCTING THEM ON A DIFFERENT FOUNDATION. That also works for me, but that particular option, statewide party registration, as a purely practical matter, won’t happen without State intervention. What has been proposed, internally in the GOP, (and strategized, BTW, by the corrupt herein) is current leadership APPOINTING their own electorate. I hope you can understand how that is not what we want.

You say, “Washington elections are definitely non-partisan.” But you only describe a cursorily non-partisan BALLOT. Elections are not a ballot in a void. You ignore the Parties, the conventions, the culture and traditions, the campaigns, the philosophies, and the media. They, too, are part of the election. If the ELECTIONS were “non-partisan” there would, statistically, be as many Republicans as Democrats elected in King County and Seattle, just as there would be as many Democrats as Republicans elected in Eastern Washington, since “Party” is not a consideration. To the contrary, we have a very, very, partisan electorate, partisan media, partisan government, partisan campaigns and, directly as a result, elections that are profoundly influenced by Party affiliation.
But I know what you mean. The ballot is, legally, but not “literally” (as the ruling pointed out) non-partisan.

You say, “The American Legion, along with other groups, should be able to keep people who have nothing to do with them off the ballot.”
Of course. And they are so able, in precisely the same manner Oscar would be shut down. Do you imagine he would be arrested as an exercise in government enforcement? Not a chance. He would be sued. Did the Grange sue you? No? They DID NOT even attempt to enforce their right of association. To make the argument that they COULD NOT, you need to allege that they filed suit and lost. And appealed. Until the law was settled.
But they would not lose and you even provided the legal precedent for that conclusion.

You say, “Grassroots activists need to make their own way, and the good news is they can. The first step is to let the state go.”
You know it’s interesting; I’ve been having this debate for more than a year on facebook… with anarchists.
I say, “We need just laws” and they respond, “Forget the state.”
If the rights of the owners of the Republican Party are not worth legal protection, then the rights of other private companies should not be either. “Enforce your own rights. Disband the state. Just buy guns.”